- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 60,828
- Liked Posts:
- 39,201
Makes sense. Phelps has 23 gold medals, more than twice as much as 2nd place (9 gold medals)...Phelps won 8 gold medals in 2008 Olympics, Bolt has 7 gold medals total...but in terms of "pure dominance", Bolt is obviously better.
This stuff was already covered above. Pure dominance to me is measured by winning the same events. Bolt is potentially going to win the 100 and 200 meters 3 times, he holds the world records in those events and it's not even close, and he is competing against a much larger group of competitors because everyone can run but half the world can't swim. There are literally around 7 billion people in the world that could conceivably challenge him. The number is less than half of that for Phelps.
So not sure what you don't understand. Phelps is a more versatile performer with exceptional endurance that competes in a sport that allows him to rack up more medals. But as far as dominance, if I had to put all my life savings on Bolt in the 100 or 200 or Phelps in the 100, 200 butterfly or 200 IM, I am putting my money on Bolt easily because I am far more confident that he would win than I would be than Phelps. I have never seen Bolt lose in the Olympics. He is easily the fastest man ever in his chosen events. I've seen Phelps lose the 200 m fly in 2012 and the 100m fly in 2016 and I know Ryan Lochte has the WR record in the 200 IM. So in his 3 best events, I've seen others that can challenge him. Never really seen that with Bolt when it counts.
In short, I have seen Phelps be mortal. I have never seen that with Bolt really. That is why he is more dominant than me. You are free to disagree but trying to pretend this is confusing or illogical is silly.